You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'politics' tag.
By Erin
Epstein
When it comes to the massive failure of an intelligent healthcare debate, I blame the geniuses. A couple of weeks ago I heard Richard Epstein participate in a debate regarding healthcare. Professor Epstein, who teaches at NYU School of Law, is of the Chicago school of law and economics, which is to say that he believes in capitalism, or more specifically, in laissez-faire capitalism. His is the kind of intellect that Ayn Rand fantasized about, and he leads the field in torts, contracts, and health care law. Basically, if anyone could articulate best why Obama’s plan could fail, it should be Richard Epstein.
And maybe he did.
Unfortunately, the only words I understood were the names he called government employees. Like listening to Dr. House ridicule his fellows while solving the case, I understood his tone—his general disbelief that people below his I.Q. score can do anything right—but I could not understand his evidence. Technicalities and jargon riddled his argument which left me wondering whether or not he won the debate.
Now, I don’t necessarily lean populist. I think the smartest people should work on the country’s toughest problems in order to come up with the best solutions. But the healthcare debate illuminates the flaws of such a process—in a democratic society, the smartest people need to be able to articulate why their solutions are the best in order for the rest of us to make an informed vote (or, more accurately, in order for the members of Congress to make an informed vote).
I’m not calling for a dumbing down of the geniuses, but I am calling for a new skill set to be developed in the ivory towers. Communication is key. Otherwise all we’re left with is name-calling from both the idiots and the intellects.
By Ryan
People are interesting. When it comes to their relationship with other people, they often struggle with commitment, afraid of investing too much of themselves in something that could potentially hurt them later on. When faced with more abstract ideas, however, many tend to overvalue commitment to the point that it actually fosters a relationship of hurt with the very thing to which they commit. I’ve done this, but I’m trying to do it less; I’ve found a helpful phrase to express this idea: choosing to not engage with things that don’t engage me.
Take, for example, the area of politics. I’ve been so sick of politics, politicians, pundits, and the way we choose to talk about politics in 2009 that, frankly, my only experiences in a realm I once enjoyed have been mostly negative. Almost every time I choose to engage with political ideas, via reading about them or talking about them, the end result is me feeling disappointed with myself and others. Politics is prime area of interest that forces one to have conversations on the turf of others, refusing to meet the needs or interests of those not highly-attuned to what happens in D.C.
It’s not just politics, though. I feel the same way about things that are more trivial (to some), like television. I don’t care how long you’ve watched a series—if it’s bad now, then it’s not worth watching anymore. People act like they’re “pot-committed” in poker; just because you’ve already put in a lot of money that you’re likely to lose is no reason to stay around and throw more money in the pot. Furthermore, I can’t tell you how many people rave about certain shows that, upon viewing, I’ve stopped watching after the first episode. Don’t tell me to “stick with it.” If The Wire or Mad Men or whatever doesn’t make you want to watch more, then don’t watch more. In fact, I think it’s kind of silly to watch more if that’s the case.
The same goes for reading a book, watching a movie, listening to music, going on a trip, going to church, etc. This is your life; if you aren’t being engaged in a way that makes you want to engage, then, by all means, disengage. There’s no prize for finishing something that you’re doing out of leisure, guilt, or self-assumed responsibility and you’re only hurting yourself to think there’s value in completion.
By Anna
Where does my generation stand in the face of protest? The Vietnam peacemakers transitioned the youth of this country from the enlisting patriots of World Wars I and II to global citizens recognizing the greater issues. What the Vietnam protesters of my father’s generation see as a catatonic waste of a young generation, we see as digital intercontinental vilification. Our action takes to the greatest force in the world: the Internet.
Last week, I wrote about the new “surge” campaign for Afghanistan in Bush tradition, which naturally increases the death toll not only for U.S. troops, but Afghan citizens as well. Death is final, yet the military makes a career out of it.
There is a war for every peacemaker. Some will chose to defend the deaths of U.S. citizens abroad, but others choose children in Sudan, teachers in Cambodia (circa 1975), mothers in Rwanda or Japanese in America.
I respect, research and admire those Vietnam protestors, but defend the lack of physical protests of my generation against the quagmires of Iraq and what will be Afghanistan because times change, and the youth adapt the quickest.
By Anna
In the race for world power, President Obama promised to leave Iraq within the first 16 months of office. And it seemed as though most Americans were behind this plan, but where was the punditry and critique of the Afghan War during the election? Where is the inveighing against our part in any war?
Though it may not have been in vain that we entered Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama bin Laden, we have yet to recover his remains and barely remember his existence, but for Sept. 11.
According to McClatchy Newspapers, “the U.S.-led NATO coalition in Afghanistan now has lost more troops this year than in all of 2008, and August is on track to be the deadliest month for American troops there since U.S. operations began nearly eight years ago.”
Though the United States is not on its own in Afghanistan, it certainly has the most pull and clout with more U.S. troops occupying Afghanistan than there are people in my hometown of 55,000, which explains why foreign policy experts are beginning to wonder if Obama’s decisions aren’t just in the Bush tradition “with the difference being that Mr. Obama could be putting more American lives at risk to pursue a failed policy,” according to The New York Times.
When the president talks of war he talks of death. U.S. troops may be expendable, but Afghan citizens are not. It has been a long time since a war has been fought on the homeland and I wonder what would be done differently if Afghan citizens were of equal value to U.S. citizens. What if the war was in your city?
In total:
2008: 294 deaths in Afghanistan
2009 (from Aug. 25): 295 deaths in Afghanistan
MS Paint superstar up in here
Does the U.S. need healthcare reform? Is the current set of bills in Congress a solution? And what about “socialism”? Joel and I bat these ideas around in this podcast for all the folks who were watching So You Think You Can Dance instead of the presidential presser. Listen to it on your way to see G-Force. AMERICA!
Download Reactionary Century Podcast 04 – 072709
